December 28, 2011

WaPo highlights a comedy tour that's targeting Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee, apparently on the theory that's where the Islamophobes are. They're filming themselves to make a documentary, and as you can see from the glossy clips presented at the linked WaPo page, they've set out to cherry-pick anti-Muslim remarks from the locals... even though they've got almost nothing. (For example, they catch a Southern girl saying she doesn't know what people would think if a mosque opened up in her neighborhood.)

Isn't this all rather Southernophobic? What if 4 comedians from Georgia, Alabama and Tennessee called themselves "The Southerners Are Coming!" and went to New York City — comedians just about exactly as funny and perceptive as the 4 comedians in the WaPo story — and they went around trying to elicit anti-Southern remarks from New Yorkers and cherry-picked the meanest/stupidest things people said. I have 2 questions about that: 1. Would the New Yorkers remarks be worse than what the Southerners said in the "Muslims Are Coming!" video? and 2. Would the Washington Post (or the New York Times) promote these aspiring comedians with a big glossy web page like the one at the link?

This so-called Islamophobia is the same as I've alway said about the number of racists in the south. It's probably about the same as anywhere else. The regional difference just applies to whether or not they're in the closet about it.

Get some New englanders and Upper Midwesterners behind closed doors in their lily white, Catholic/Lutheran communities and you'll find plenty of racists/Islamophobes.

These sanctimonious twits will utter any lie to maintain the perception of compassion and tolerance.

Sampling bias in small communities lead to people thinking that small communities are more (or less!) -ist than cities, which have a large enough population that you get the more believable average. This innumeracy leads to things like bad comics doing bad ideas, yet getting into the paper.

I have lived in the south mostly. North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, the Philippines and Korea, but also rural Illinois. I have made repeated visits to rural Michigan and Wisconsin. I feel safe in saying that they’re as many if not more rednecks and dirt roads in Michigan and Wisconsin than any southern state.

I don't think we can fail to remind the North often enough that the last riots over segregation happened in . . . Boston, MA.

There some maps out there that show where the minorities live in large cities and, in the northern cities, there are very clear lines between the "white" parts and the "dark" parts. Whereas the southern cities are generally more mixed.

But then, it is islamaphobia (or something evil) when consumers express their disapproval at corporate sponsors of moslum propaganda.

Pretty lame. They say they want to show they are not all Mohammad Atta. But nobody is saying they are all Mohammad Atta. Instead of proffering a teaching moment to southerners, these people should go to Afghanistan and Pakistan and fight those terrorist groups who have hijacked their religion.

You live long enough, you see things come back around, sometimes more than once. How quaint it seems that folks once worried that a President JFK might take his marching orders from the Vatican. Please. A Kennedy altering his behavior due to the restrictions of Catholic dogma?

But unfortunately, because that was so silly, there might be a tendency to laugh off the same concern over some Muslims. That would be a mistake, I think. Sometimes when the boy cries "Wolf!", there really is a wolf.

"This past November, Oklahoma voters by a 70-30 percent margin passed a ballot question that barred “state courts from considering international or Islamic law when deciding cases.” The new law — which was widely considered as unfairly targeting the Muslim community and blaming it for the non-existent threat of Sharia law in the United states — was blocked by an injunction issued just a few weeks later by federal judge Vicki Miles-LaGrange. The judge argued that the Sharia ban was unconstitutional because it violated the establishment clause of the First Amendment and unfairly singled out Muslims.

In another time, this would be laughed out of the Oklahoma Legislature.” Yet unfortunately, leading conservatives continue to lend support to the sensationalist anti-Sharia movement. Newt Gingrich is even pushing for a federal law that “clearly and unequivocally states that we’re not going to tolerate any imported law.”

Exactly. I can't even be bothered to care about this kind of idiocy. Just people trying to make themselves feel better about themselves by making fun of others. The rest of us got over that in grade school.

Let's discuss why they actually ran this piece. It couldn't have been more innocuous and reasonable. There was zero--ZERO--red meat here. Were they committed to the piece and had to? There was no story tension. Nothing surprising or, you know, newsworthy. I'm just baffled at the takeaway here. The guy's last words about just hoping to chip away at Islamaphobia a little bit with their modest comedy tour suggested they's encountered a pick-up-truck's full load of it. Baloney. Non-story.

Oh, I forgot to add...there is a new mosque down the road from me. Across the road from a big Baptist church, and next door to a nondenominational Christian church with a school. It has an unpronounceable name (seriously, nobody knows how to say it) on the front, not Arabic but possibly something Indian? Anyway, when it went in, everyone kind of shrugged and went about our business. The only mystery is where the parishioners (what is the right word?!) come from, because they have a full parking lot every Friday night. I don't know a single person who knows a single person who goes there, and I haven't seen people in the community who dress in such a way to make me think they go there. And I live on the most multi-cultural street you could see anywhere. It is a beautiful, simple building. Since my church is trying to build, I know how expensive it can be, so the money involved is also somewhat mysterious.

It used to rankle me a bit when Yankees would piss on the South, but now I rather like it because it helps keep the jerks away. So, In order to ward off the goobers, I’m thinking about actively promoting the view that it’s like “Deliverance“or “The Hills Have Eyes” down here.

For those that do come… Upon arrival, why the heck do you immediately advocate and vote for the very same policies that drove you from the North in the first place?

Note: Don’t get me wrong… There are some good Yankees, but most require liberal amounts of BBQ sauce before they are worth eatin’.

Three years ago, I pulled into a service station near Huntsville AL airport to fill up the rental car. I was surprised to find the service station run by a muslim Pakistani family. I first thought "Wow, that must be culture shock!", but then the more I thought about it that Muslim family was surrounded by a conservative, family-oriented, keep yer drinkin' & sexual peccadillos quiet kind of culture much like they left back home.

I know there still is that big Allah vs Jesus thing to negotiate, but, hell, it works with the Jews & Mormons.

And of course no honor killings. I don't think anyone's snuffed a young Junie Mae over the question of her lost honor in a right long time.

The Muslims have been in Atlanta for 50+ years. They do good work, raise good families and are not hateful to Christians at all. They are much like the Mormons who are also a minority out spreading their religion by putting their best foot forward.

The black helicopters are piloted by the Zionist Occupied Government minions at the beck and call of the Trilateral Commission & the international Jewish bankers. The Klan are the guys on the ground shooting at them with deer rifles.

Keep the narrative straight, man!

(NOTE to any lefty-bloggers lurking for hysterical right comments chez Althouse. The above comment is a joke.)

The last time the Southerners were the good guys was in "Birth of a nation", but only because the guy in the White House was one of them.

GMay said...

This so-called Islamophobia is the same as I've alway said about the number of racists in the south. It's probably about the same as anywhere else. The regional difference just applies to whether or not they're in the closet about it.

Get some New englanders and Upper Midwesterners behind closed doors in their lily white, Catholic/Lutheran communities and you'll find plenty of racists/Islamophobes.

These sanctimonious twits will utter any lie to maintain the perception of compassion and tolerance.

Hmmm,

Sounds more like a gathering of the Democrat Party.

Or the Occupation.

PS Meade, it was a good one.

Very droll.

PPS Should be another option(s) - Yes/No and You must be joking.

WV "inkswine" (no kidding) The people at the WaPo who would do a story like this.

I feel safe in saying that they’re as many if not more rednecks and dirt roads in Michigan and Wisconsin than any southern state.

I'm sure. Living my first 38 years in Tennessee, I thought Ohio would be largely devoid of the rednecks I came to know and love in Tennessee. (I speak not in jest or sarcasm. Most of those rednecks are wonderful people.) But, rural Ohio is just as redneck as anywhere in Tennessee. Hamilton, OH, which is not rural, is often referred to as Hamiltucky because of the redneck influence there.

(The Uncredentialed, Crypto Jew)Would the Klan even deign to fly black helicopters? Or would they drape those in sheets too

Good Point, those helicopters would be WHITE, and I mean totally white, not one drop on non-white paint!

As to the Joo-ess in Atlanta, we’d just lujrk around the really cheap airlines, ‘cuz we’all know that jooos is cheap OR we’all would hang around the first class liunges cuz we’all also knows joooos is rich….t’aint’t hard a’finding the joos. When in doubt we ask the men-folk has you called yo Momma, an’ if they look gilty we knows we dun found us won…and fer the wimmen-folk we listenz fer the Fran Drescher voice.

I suppose I have a fair number of misperceptions about Muslims. But I would guess my misperceptions are neglible compared to those they have about me.....In the way that Socrates was the wisest man in Athens because he was aware of his ignorance, whites are the least bigoted Americans because they are most aware of their bigotry. The exception to this is, of course, white liberals who believe that their prejudice against conservative whites is a way of transcending bigotry.

Just sayin' conservatives have a hard time grasping the concept of freedom of religion most everywhere.

"if you ever saw it at all."

Althouse will be the first to tell 'ya I grasp everything that is happening at this blog as it's a quick study. She posts a negative post re: Dems/Libs/Obama/MSM etc. and her flock mostly reaffirms her skewed reality.

The At Least 13 States Have Introduced Bills Guarding Against Non-Existent Threat Of Sharia Law story, http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/08/142590/sharia-states/,Was written by a guy named Zaid Jilani who occasionally freelances for Al Jazeera. The story includes a quote from a CAIR spokesman, Hamas fan, and Shariah supporter Ibrahim Hooper.I think we can safely assume that Shiloh's comment was meant to be ironic and humorous. Ha! Shiloh, droll fellow!

What fascinates me is that there are people who either don't have any visceral reaction (before their PC censor clicks in) or claim to have no reaction, negative or positive, to the sight of a woman in a burqa on a street in America. It chills me to the bone.

The media is making a BFD about these comedians/activists. So I figure they are existing on grants from either the government and/or the government and liberal NGOs, who fantasize about the hatred of we Amuricans for "the other."

These Muslims have generated more fun and understanding than these snobs.

It seems to me that allowing religious-based law would violate the 1st Amendment establishment clause. It might also go against the equal protection portions of the Constitution as well. Why would anyone think that allowing different standards of law - especially based on religion - would be constitutional?

As for those people who constantly make fun of the South - especially the ones who've never been there but learned all about it from the NYT and NPR - it just goes to show that you don't have to go overseas to be an Ugly American.

In our little town (less than 500 people) which I'm quite sure Shilo would be clutching his/her pearls and having the vapors because he/she assumes that everyone is gun tottin' rednecks......the local quickie mart was purchased by a young muslim couple who have a two very cute daughters. They dress and act normally, just like everyone else.

Upon discovering through conversations with the wife of the store ownere, that her husband is diabetic as is my husband and discussing the drink selection in their store they started stocking items that were requested.

Their kids joined 4-H and get along well in the school. The conversations never turn to religion as they don't flaunt it and respect the religions of everyone else.

Replacing the Welcome Hunters and Welcome Fisherman seasonal signs, they had a very nice Merry Christmas display in their store this year. Marketing 101.

Basically, no one gives a shit what you believe as long as you keep it to yourself and keep out of other people's business.

One of the weirdest reactions is when Northerners think Southerners are 'phonies' when they smile on the street, make small talk, or just generally behave in a friendly way in retail or neighborhood situations.

DBQ wrote:Laws that support such oppression and slavery have no part of American Culture.

Sharia permits slavery. See this BBC article on sharia & slavery:http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtmlAs you read it, remember that the article is trying to put a positive spin on the Islamic practice of slavery: Islam greatly limited those who could be enslaved and under what circumstances (although these restrictions were often evaded) Islam treated slaves as human beings as well as property Islam banned the mistreatment of slaves - indeed the tradition repeatedly stresses the importance of treating slaves with kindness and compassion Islam allowed slaves to achieve their freedom and made freeing slaves a virtuous act Islam barred Muslims from enslaving other Muslims

So modern liberals, in an effort to distance themselves from their fellow Americans, and feel superior to their fellow Americans, mock people who want to ban a system of law that treats human beings as property.

I just watched the video over lunch, and I came to a different conclusion than intended, (I think).

It looks to me like the documentary will be more about the Muslims discovering that fly-over country and the south are areas where people are profound in their thoughts, accepting of others, and generally friendly and tolerant of differences.

Which, of course, is the journey of discovery that all the elitists cannot - or at least refuse to -understand.

Let's take a closer look at the Thinkprogress article Shiloh linked to:http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/02/08/142590/sharia-states/It's not original reporting. It's a rewrite of a USA today article (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-12-09-shariaban09_ST_N.htm) with the attempt at balance removed and various adjectives and descriptive terms added to make Thinkprogress readers feel all warm and superior to those red state bigots.Thinkprogress repeatedly uses the term "non-existent threat" to describe the problem the anti-sharia laws are meant to oppose, yet in the original USA Today article (which, being Soros crib, Thinkprogress does not link to), the person who sued to have the OK law invalidated is reported as saying "Awad says the Oklahoma law would prohibit a judge from probating his will, written in compliance with Islamic principles, or adjudicating other domestic matters such as divorces and custody disputes involving Muslims."The Thinkprogress piece also left out this intersting bit of the USA Today article:Earlier this year, for example, an appeals court in New Jersey overturned a state court judge's refusal to issue a restraining order against a Muslim man who forced his wife to engage in sexual intercourse. The judge found that the man did not intend to rape his wife because he believed his religion permitted him to have sex with her whenever he desired.

The case "presents a conflict between the criminal law and religious precepts," the appeals court wrote. "In resolving this conflict, the judge determined to except (the husband) from the operation of the State's statutes as the result of his religious beliefs. In doing so, the judge was mistaken."

It is a good thing that people do not read Thinkprogress so they can intelligently discuss the topics of the day.

I don't pretend to be the brightest bulb around here, but I believe Terry was responding to your REPORT: At Least 13 States Have Introduced Bills Guarding Against Non-Existent Threat Of Sharia Law comment and the derision you seem to be heaping upon those that want to make sure that situations similar to the NJ situation do not take place.

One of the weirdest reactions is when Northerners think Southerners are 'phonies' when they smile on the street, make small talk, or just generally behave in a friendly way in retail or neighborhood situations.

I actually got into an argument with somebody about the winner of Master Chef a year or two ago. They called her ‘phony’ and I said ‘In the south we call that manners’. Apparently that pissed somebody off at TWOP because I got a warning for it, but it is what it is.

Actually, shiloh, you've got yourself in a bit of a logical bind here.

If there are no Muslims to be affected by these anti-sharia laws in Oklahoma, then it's like the Oklahomans declaring that purple unicorns are a protected species. Silly, but no harm -- no foul, as no one is really affected.

But if there are Muslims afoot, then you know, those rednecks may actually follow the news, as opposed to ThinkProgress bilge, and are aware of pushes for sharia courts in Britain & Canada & Australia. They also may know that historically Muslim religious pluralism was based on the "millet" system where each religious community was governed by its own religious law, and they think that a secular constitution is a better bulwark for religious liberty.

Finally, there is no shortage in the news of Muslims using sharia systems as excuses to persecute Christians, and all the Christian boofers in the US may just want to take a stand for their fellow Christians and say, as best they can in their own homeland "Enough!".

As you can guess from my handle, I've read an awful lot of Marxist & post-modern leftist thought in my day, and unlike many other commenters here, I don't think being a lefty is an automatic mark of stupidity. Nowadays, the internet makes me want to reconsider that judgement on a daily basis.

All these guys are doing is creating a diversion. I think folks see the news and Muslims killing each other by the bushel, Muslim women being abused in Egypt and Afghanistan. So rather than denounce the so called tiny minority of bad Muslims who make them all look bad, they instead try to make all Southern folks look like bigots.

Since Scott M is hangin' on my every word, shocking, perhaps he can tell us of a social/economic/financial problem which was solved by political blogging.

Hardly...it's slow today and atom pops up an unread every time a new comment is added to a thread I'm following.

You made an assertion. Someone disagreed with it. I'm simply waiting to see if you have a rebuttal beyond the bloglite you're putting out. Your original point was a good one, whether I agree with it or not. After that you seemed to have devolved into 'neener-neerer'isms.

I think Shiloh was misquoting liberal NY Times columnist and intellectual powerhouse Thomas Friedman:The first rule of holes is when you’re in one, stop digging. When you’re in three, bring a lot of shovels.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/21/opinion/21friedman.html

Friedman gets a lot of ink at Thinkprogress. I figure they use him to raise the intellectual bar for house writers like Zaid Jilani.

Y ?!? Since I will never be a regular here, no. As always, the most entertaining posters are ones who don't take themselves all that serious. Again, the main problem w/political blogs is redundancy er diminishing returns ie there is only so many ways conservatives can say ~ Obama sucks!

ok, ok, I'm sure Althouse conservatives strive for creativity lol.

Speaking of redundacy, almost totally sure I mentioned the Obama sucks meme just before I took a break from this blog earlier this year.

Rinse, lather, repeat ...

btw, really enjoyed Mary 'cause every time she makes a post, Meade deletes it. Alas, I can only hope for such perfection. :D

Their is a huge spectrum of Marxist & post-marxist leftist thought, and by no means can the horrors of the Soviet, CCP, and other communist regimes be assigned to these thinkers, anymore than the horrors of American slavery be assigned to conservative thinkers who praise the Founding Fathers.

And then sometimes, Delayna, one must deal with the very troubling thought that there were men, like Martin Heidegger & the Nazi regime, who were brilliant thinkers who actively collaborated with evil. What one makes of those men is up to you. I don't have an answer.

Shiloh is the classic thread disturber. The concept seems to be that if he can tie up 10-15 folk from the other side, they are prevented from doing good works elsewhere. I think they can multi-task better that he thinks.

Who are these thinkers? If they are post-Marxists, what makes them Leftists?

I consider the post-Marxist leftists to be folks who, while they pursue politics that are anti-capitalist and statist do not see class-consciousness as the be all of political struggle. They might be ethnic liberationists or feminists or anarchists. Do you really need a list of leading lights?

Stalin and Mao were Hegelians, weren't they?

NO! Absolutely NOT! Stalin was a Bolshevik. Mao was a syncretic Marxist of God only knows what stripe.

Hegel's notion of the state was in no way totalitarian, unless you think a constitutional monarchy with a parliament is totalitarian. Go read the Philosophy of Law (or Right) for yourself and see.

I don't think that the post-marxists you describe are as post-marxist as you think they are, Young Hegelian. They still consider capitalism to be their enemy, and they want to redistribute capital using the mechanism of the State (existing or hypothetical). Social and cultural capital are still capital. The post-marxists still think of the world and themselves in marxist terms. Especially they regard themselves as the agents of revolutionary social change, leading the masses out from a dark age into Trotsky's "radiant future, in which man, strong and beautiful, will become master of the drifting stream of his history and will direct it towards the boundless horizons of beauty, joy and happiness!"I always thought that was a Hegelian sentiment; that is, the narrative we see unfolding in history is the collective work of man in time.But then, it has been a very long time since I took Phil. 110.

To be anti-capitalist, redistributionalist, statist, and revolutionary are not the qualifying marks of Marxism, per se. Indeed, National Socialism fits all of those qualifications.

There are pre-marxist lefties, like Proudhon & Bakunin, and there are post marxist lefties.

I stick by my claim that the hallmark of Marxism is the primacy of class consciousness and class struggle. The proletariat knows the right path of history because it has through its praxis created that social reality. Class consciousness determines one's view of the world and there is no transcendence or escape from its clutches.

Where a classical Marxist would disagree with a post-marxist is that a post-marxist would posit that the identity of being third-world, black, oriental, gay, lesbian, female, latino have equal or greater weight than class.

the narrative we see unfolding in history is the collective work of man in time.

No, it's the collective unfolding of Geist (Spirit) in and out of history. Only Marxist hegelians reduce Geist to human agency, which is why they ignore the Greater Logic & the Encyclopedia. It's hard to square geist as human agency with Hegel's saying in the Logic that "these are the thoughts of God before the creation".

Young Hegelian, thank you for being so civil! It's a rare treat on this thread.You've convinced me that I have to read the Brittanica on Hegel (a quick look tells me that it is thick going). I admit that I think of Marxism more in terms of a political ideology than as a continental philosophy, specifically a revolutionary ideology that looks to social progress (as Marxism defines it) and history for justification. The problem I see with "post-Marxism" is that no class consciousness means no unity of purpose. It's reactionary in the way that national socialism was reactionary; each group is aggrieved by the current order, but each group's geist is unique to that group.